When I described the proposed Mid-Continent Trade and Transportion SuperCorridor as a “Nation Crusher,” was this just another example of hysterical right-wing alarmism? Not according to an establishment champion of the corridor, Mayor Kay Barnes of Kansas City, Missouri. In an article announcing that Kansas City is about to become a foreign port, with its own Mexican Customs Clearance Facility, she praises the SuperCorridor as leading to, and as requiring, the “complete commercial, economic, political, and cultural integration“ of the U.S. and other countries. Here’s the complete quote:

As we have learned from the past, integration in the new global economy comes from complete commercial, economic, political, and cultural integration. With our strategic position in the heart of America, and as the hub of the North American Trade Corridor, Kansas City intends to be an integral part of the global marketplace for years to come.

It’s worth repeating. That’s the mayor of a mid-Western American city calling for the “complete … political … integration” of the U.S. and certain foreign countries. That means nothing less than the dissolution of the United States of America in some continental or global superstate.

Also, notice how the exponents of expanded globalized trade NEVER stop at trade. The globalization of trade is only a step toward their real aim, which is Marx’s One World, Capitalist-style. And notice how this ultra-revolutionary project is never put forward as such, but is merely presented as a utilitarian plan to enhance economic efficiency. They tack the dismantling of the United States onto this project as if it were nothing more than a commonsensical step, the desirablity of which is understood by everyone, not even requiring debate.

- end of initial entry -

Spencer Warren writes:

Your post about the super highway cutting across the gut of our country raises the question that the ongoing global development of capitalism deserves as much discussion re our nation’s and civilization’s demise as the cultural/political/ idea issues that we’ve been focusing on.

Buchanan may have been right about globalism, NAFTA, etc. His problem is he discredits most of what he touches because of his excessive pugnacity and recklessness on other issues. Yet he is the closest to a traditionalist conservative leader. We desperately need a good one and Tancredo is the only possibility, it seems to me.

I suspect business’s desire for open borders is at least as important as whatever might be Bush’s personal or religious notions. (He doesn’t have enough substance to have true convictions.)

Bush may be a much more damaging president than his predecessor.

LA replies:

Sure, the business-class’s globalism is a major factor. You don’t need liberalism to destroy a nation. You just need the desire to make the world “efficient.”

However, without 300 years in which liberalism slowly abolished the transcendent by reducing the idea of human society to the protection of “life, liberty and property,” there would have been no soil in which which the present demonic economism—incarnated in the SuperCorridor project—could have grown.